RAYMOND EDWARD SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRYL MARTIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE, OF DAVID MARTIN, DECEASED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE SURVIVORS OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID MARTIN, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony that attributed gross negligence to the appellant, as this is a question for the jury.
Appellant was found grossly negligent by a jury for running over a co-worker in an employer's truck. Appellant appealed, arguing the facts did not ris…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jury'S Role cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM
This is an appeal from a final judgment in which the jury found appellant to be grossly negligent when he ran over a co-worker in the employer’s truck. While appellant contends the facts do not reach the level of gross negligence, we are unable to say it was error to leave the issue with the jury.
Although appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict and subsequent motions on the issue of gross negligence, he is entitled to a new trial as the trial court erroneously admitted the conclusory opinion testimony of appellee’s expert attributing gross negligence to appellant. This was a question clearly for the jury, not for an expert’s opinion, as proscribed by Town of Palm Beach v. Palm Beach County, 460 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1984).
The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that the danger of admitting this type of expert testimony is that “the jury may forego independent analysis of the facts and bow too readily to the opinion of and (sic) expert.” Angrand, v. Key, 667 So. 2d 1146 (Fla.1995). Where the jury was faced with the difficult issue of determining a distinction between negligence and gross negligence, the error of admitting the expert’s opinion on what facts established gross negligence was particularly likely to influence the juries’ decision.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial based on the admission of the expert’s testimony.
GLICKSTEIN, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cnty. OF Volusia v. Kemp, 764 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…itted. See Angrand; Town of Palm Beach; Fino. Furthermore, an expert should not be allowed to render an opinion which applies a legal standard to a set of facts. See Town of Palm Beach; Gurganus v. State, 451 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1984); Smith v. Martin, 707 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Christian v. State, 693 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), quashed on other grounds, 692 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1997); Gulley v. Pierce, 625 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Shaw v. State, 557 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); cf. Brescher v.…
-
JD Duff v. Gillian Racine, 414 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Town OF Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Cnty., 460 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1984)